Why Does God Allow Suffering?

[warpspeedpetey]

You still don’t understand. Free will disappears if the freedom to act on it is removed. Free will is **restricted **if freedom to act is restricted. What is so complicated about the difference between “restricted” and “removed”?

because when you say it is removed, you are asserting some magical process is occuring. when you say restricted you are making the regular argument. the first one is way out there. the second can be discussed.

Love is an undefined word here. Love is an emotion, not subject to volitional control.

i assume you mean agape, Christain love. how is that not volitional? self sacrifice would require volition.

The **expression **of love is subject to volitional control. Love without expressing it in actions is not relevant.

so a person who cannot express their love physically doesnt actually love? so a paralyzed man cannot love another?

The actions which come from expressing the emotions are exactly as valuable as the same actions even if they are not connected to the emotions.

true, a dollar from grandma is worth the same as a dollar found.

Therefore love as the motivating factor behind the actions is just another meaningless category. Again, the actions are important, not the motivating reason for the actions.

now i see how you get that conclusion.

the main problem is in the premises above are assertions.

but also in that no one actually feels that way, emotions arent about rational exposition. the motivations for love matter to just about everyone. surely you have had a girlfriend or a wife who asked you what you liked about them or why you loved them? you make think everyone would be satisfied with a robot that just made the motions, but i dont know anyone who would choose a robot over a flesh and blood woman. no matter how perfect the simulation, anything i can replace with a trip to wal mart isnt worth much. the argument is based on a flawed understanding of human emotions and motivations.

As for God’s alleged “love”, there are no actions to substantiate this claim. God does not come to the rescue in need, God does not heal the sick, God does not do anything that could be interpreted as “love”.

talking about G-ds love requires the assumption that G-d exists for the purposes of the conversation. with that assumption in mind, G-ds love was expressed many times. the Creation, Jesus Sacrifice, and all the other times G-d expressed his love in various ways. he does heal, doctors can tell you about miracles they cant explain, G-d does rescue people. i think all that can be interpretted as love.

Even if there would be an emotion in God (which is a dubious claim), there are no volitional actions which would lend credence to this claim.

why is that?

The only possible substantiation would be John 3:16, which is just an empty promise in a book of mythology. There is no evidence for it.

James 3:16 is in the Bible, a compilation of dozens of books. one of which is the book of James. not in a book of mythology, in a collection of witness statements all reporting and verifying the what had occured. that is as much evidence as you have for any historical event that you did not witness in person.

 

[Sair]

To see the logic contradiction requires that you be of a logical mind.

And to see the emperor’s clothes requires you to be of a certain level of intelligence… Yeah. Heard that one before too.

In the proposed logical world wherein people are “free” to do as they please, they cannot be restricted to being only benign, else they are not free. Free MEANS “no restrictions”. This IS an issue of logic. What is free cannot also be what is restricted (not free).

Then by your account, free will does not exist for us humans, because we are not omnipotent. I note with interest that this does not presuppose ‘free will’ to be some sort of extramaterial force that can direct our actions independently of circumstance. If free will simply means unlimited choice, then you are correct if you’re saying we have no free will, because our choices are always limited - by what it is possible for us to conceive and to bring about in any given circumstances.

By the same reckoning, the Judeo-Christian god cannot have free will either, since he cannot do that which is evil. Or is he merely inclined towards the good, and could choose to do evil if he wanted, but just never wants to…because he can’t want to, because he’s incapable of doing evil, even thinking evil, which means he’s not unlimited… By now this has descended into a hopeless round of circular argument.

If free will is somehow the highest good of which a necessarily good (and therefore limited) god could conceive, why did he create beings who are even more limited than he is? And if free will is such a ‘good’ thing, how can it logically necessitate evil and suffering?

 

[Betterave]

Pray for me, I believe I’ve been struggling in my faith lately. I havent been to church in well over a couple of months now. I have an arrogant, prejudice, intollorant atheist friend who takes shots at my religion every time I sit with him. (I only sit with him to sit with my other friend.) Before I became religious, we had NO problems with each other. But every day he says something like, “Remember how God helped out when millions of JEWS died in the holocaust?” But I’m starting to feel he has a point. I mean, why does God allow such suffering? Why does he allow for retarded kids? Why does he allow for Africa to starve to death? I’m certainly not questioning my faith enough to ever leave it, but this does bother me a little bit.

I don’t know if you’ve heard of Jean Vanier, but he is a person who has reflected profoundly on suffering, and not in an abstract, cynical way, but in the context of real practical love (of Christ’s love). You can view suffering as a theoretical problem, or a practical problem. Vanier spent his life living in community with severely disabled people, sharing the joys and frustrations of life with them. When asked why God created the severely disabled, his answer was (roughly), “to teach the rest of us to love.” This is an answer that could only have come from his own profound experience of love blossoming in the midst of suffering. Read some Vanier, I’m sure it will open up new dimensions of the problem for you that never occur to purely abstract and cynical thinkers like your friend.

Benedict XVI writes in Spe salvi, section 38:

The true measure of humanity is essentially determined in relationship to suffering and to the sufferer. This holds true both for the individual and for society. A society unable to accept its suffering members and incapable of helping to share their suffering and to bear it inwardly through “com-passion” is a cruel and inhuman society. Yet society cannot accept its suffering members and support them in their trials unless individuals are capable of doing so themselves; moreover, the individual cannot accept another’s suffering unless he personally is able to find meaning in suffering, a path of purification and growth in maturity, a journey of hope. Indeed, to accept the “other” who suffers, means that I take up his suffering in such a way that it becomes mine also. Because it has now become a shared suffering, though, in which another person is present, this suffering is penetrated by the light of love. The Latin word con-solatio, “consolation”, expresses this beautifully. It suggests being with the other in his solitude, so that it ceases to be solitude. …

So for the Pope, too, suffering is primarily an existential problem, not a theoretical one. Maybe these are good examples for those of us who sometimes get caught up in wanting/pretending to understand things that we quite possibly don’t.

 

[Betterave]

Hi MrZetterlund,

I just thought of another excellent book that I’m sure will help you to put the problem of suffering in perspective. It’s by Cardinal Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan who spent 9 years in solitary confinement (can you imagine?), 13 years all together, in a Vietnamese prison, simply because he wanted to devote his life to bearing witness to the love of Christ - a task at which he succeeded precisely in the midst of and from out of the crucible of great suffering. It’s called Five Loaves and Two Fish and I believe he wrote it while in prison.

 

[R_Daneel]

because when you say it is removed, you are asserting some magical process is occuring. when you say restricted you are making the regular argument. the first one is way out there. the second can be discussed.

There is no “magic” there. Suppose you are in a room with 3 doors. You have 3 options to leave the room. If you find that one door is locked, your freedom is lessened. If you find that 2 doors are locked, your freedom to leave to room is even more restricted. If all 3 doors are locked, your freedom to leave the room is gone. Where is the “magic” here?

The whole concept of freedom is about rationally available choices. If a criminal holds a gun to your loved one’s head and demands you to commit a crime, you can later defend your action by pointing out that your freedom to resist was taken away - and no rational court would find you guilty - even if you “could” have refused to comply.

i assume you mean agape, Christain love. how is that not volitional? self sacrifice would require volition.

I meant “love” in general and asked what definition of love do you have in mind.

so a person who cannot express their love physically doesnt actually love? so a paralyzed man cannot love another?

You are mixing up the different kinds of love again. Why not get a definition out and stick with it? As to your example, he may have the emotion in his mind, but is unable to express it - therefore there is no reason to assume that it is there.

true, a dollar from grandma is worth the same as a dollar found.

Good. Now we have mutual understanding. Let’s apply this to these soldiers, who rely on that robot to seek out mines. As far as the soldiers are concerned, the robot “sacrifices” itself (observe the quotation marks, please!) but the fact that the robot was programmed to do so in no way diminshes the value of this “sacrifice”. This is true “agape” - whether volitional, or not.

but also in that no one actually feels that way, emotions arent about rational exposition. the motivations for love matter to just about everyone. surely you have had a girlfriend or a wife who asked you what you liked about them or why you loved them? you make think everyone would be satisfied with a robot that just made the motions, but i dont know anyone who would choose a robot over a flesh and blood woman. no matter how perfect the simulation, anything i can replace with a trip to wal mart isnt worth much. the argument is based on a flawed understanding of human emotions and motivations.

Try to think outside the box. The robot lover is not necessarily made of metal, it can be an android, made of flesh and blood. “It” will never be unfaithful, “it” will never be jealous, “it” will always be your “loving”, caring companion even if you would mistreat “it”. Guess what, its behavior strongly resembles the love of a dog. Many people prefer to have dogs as “loving” companions. And you think that my understanding is flawed? No, I am willing to think outside the “box”.

talking about G-ds love requires the assumption that G-d exists for the purposes of the conversation.

Certainly.

with that assumption in mind, G-ds love was expressed many times. the Creation, Jesus Sacrifice, and all the other times G-d expressed his love in various ways. he does heal, doctors can tell you about miracles they cant explain, G-d does rescue people. i think all that can be interpretted as love.

Ok, let’s analyze this. You have some anecdotal evidence. As far as I am concerned, it is all undocumented assumption. But, for the sake of argument, let’s take it seriously. Among all the possible “intervention points” which cry out for God’s helping hand, how many of those are “answered”? How many sick are healed? How many tortured experience a “miraculous” escape? Less than on in a billion? Even that is probably an overstatement. So don’t think that you just delivered an argument for God’s love. Even if those “miracles” could be taken at face value, they are arbitrary and they are so rare that they simply do not count. If you would have a child who is crippled and needs constant care (which you do not give), you could not point out the fact that once you gave him a candy, and use that one instance as an “evidence” for your “love”. It all reminds me of those instances when hundreds of people perish in a plane crash, and one survives. The survivor declares: “it’s a miracle”!!! The dead say nothing…

James 3:16 is in the Bible, a compilation of dozens of books. one of which is the book of James. not in a book of mythology, in a collection of witness statements all reporting and verifying the what had occured. that is as much evidence as you have for any historical event that you did not witness in person.

This is where we part company. If you think that the Bible is historically sound, then there is not much to talk about. Certainly there are a few (very few) passages which are also documented by outside sources, but none of the “important” parts are. It is sheer mythology, exactly like the other "sacred’ books of other religions…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is no “magic” there. Suppose you are in a room with 3 doors. You have 3 options to leave the room. If you find that one door is locked, your freedom is lessened. If you find that 2 doors are locked, your freedom to leave to room is even more restricted. If all 3 doors are locked, your freedom to leave the room is gone. Where is the “magic” here?

its in the relationship between freedom of action and freedom of will. your free will isnt effected by the freedom of action in the way youre thinking. for instance, if you are tied up, you still have free will, you can make an act of will to think about something in particular or to play a song in your head. the physical restraint may prevent the physical manifestation of free will. if you are so restrained that you cant even think, then you are just an object, and not you because you no longer meet descartes requirement of cogito, in ‘cogito ergo sum’, and it becomes a moot point. we can talk about it being meaningless in some situations, but not that it simply dissapears.

The whole concept of freedom is about rationally available choices. If a criminal holds a gun to your loved one’s head and demands you to commit a crime, you can later defend your action by pointing out that your freedom to resist was taken away - and no rational court would find you guilty - even if you “could” have refused to comply.

i dont think choices need to be rational to be choices, you can always choose to act irrationally.

I meant “love” in general and asked what definition of love do you have in mind. you are mixing up the different kinds of love again. Why not get a definition out and stick with it? As to your example, he may have the emotion in his mind, but is unable to express it - therefore there is no reason to assume that it is there.

mostly because all kinds of love require an act of will, i dont think it matters, unless you have another idea. no, you couldnt assume that he loved, but you also cant say he does not. the ability to express love doesnt change his ability to have the emotion. imagine his wife were a telepath. she would know if he loved her though he was incapable of expressing it in a noticeable way, she could just read his mind with no need for him to act.

Good. Now we have mutual understanding. Let’s apply this to these soldiers, who rely on that robot to seek out mines. As far as the soldiers are concerned, the robot “sacrifices” itself (observe the quotation marks, please!) but the fact that the robot was programmed to do so in no way diminshes the value of this “sacrifice”. This is true “agape” - whether volitional, or not.

if i were the soldier i wouldnt think that the robot had ‘sacrificed’ itself. it was a machine who simply followed the remote instructionns sent, or the onboard programming, in neither case did it have a choice. that would be like claiming an airbag sacrificed itself in a car accident. sacrifice itself requires volition. as does agape love, an action without volition is nothing more than particle movement. the value to the soldier of the robots actions are the same, but that doesnt make it love.

i would agree that a dollar from grandma is the same as a dollar found, but it is not the same thing as 100 pennies.

Try to think outside the box. The robot lover is not necessarily made of metal, it can be an android, made of flesh and blood. “It” will never be unfaithful, “it” will never be jealous, “it” will always be your “loving”, caring companion even if you would mistreat “it”. Guess what, its behavior strongly resembles the love of a dog. Many people prefer to have dogs as “loving” companions. And you think that my understanding is flawed? No, I am willing to think outside the “box”.

i understand, even a perfect simulation isnt the same thing as real love, a simulation must be forced. love is a free will act. this is the most important thing to almost everyone. didnt they make a movie about this?

have you ever had a girlfriend or a wife? you would never tell a woman, “hey, im just faking love, but youre ok with that becaause im giving a perfect simulation right?” thats why im saying your emotional understanding is flawed. its not a comment on IQ, its an assesment of your EQ. i have a really low EQ, and im aware of what is escaping you. thats why i keep trying to tell you thats not a real world option. much less for a G-d who cannot be fooled even by a perfect simulation.

continued…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok, let’s analyze this. You have some anecdotal evidence. As far as I am concerned, it is all undocumented assumption. But, for the sake of argument, let’s take it seriously. Among all the possible “intervention points” which cry out for God’s helping hand, how many of those are “answered”? How many sick are healed? How many tortured experience a “miraculous” escape? Less than on in a billion? Even that is probably an overstatement. So don’t think that you just delivered an argument for God’s love. Even if those “miracles” could be taken at face value, they are arbitrary and they are so rare that they simply do not count. If you would have a child who is crippled and needs constant care (which you do not give), you could not point out the fact that once you gave him a candy, and use that one instance as an “evidence” for your “love”. It all reminds me of those instances when hundreds of people perish in a plane crash, and one survives. The survivor declares: “it’s a miracle”!!! The dead say nothing…

this really goes to the question of suffering. why would a loving G-d allow suffering. if we assume G-ds existence as we must when asking that question. then this is the appropriate answer.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html

now if you are tempted to say that it doesnt fit the standard of what you think is appropriate, here is a technical demonstration to explain why personal opinions of G-ds actions cant be valid.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=367987

This is where we part company. If you think that the Bible is historically sound, then there is not much to talk about. Certainly there are a few (very few) passages which are also documented by outside sources, but none of the “important” parts are. It is sheer mythology, exactly like the other "sacred’ books of other religions…

each book is independent. supporting the others, which is why they were cannonized. so when you talk about outside sources the most important ‘outside sources’ are included in the Bible. the Bible is in fact a compilation of all the books available at the time that were found to support the new faith.

but more important, why do you think all these dozens of books need a further verification after that? surely you dont deny the moonlanding happened, or the magna carta existed, or alexander conquered babylon? yet, you dont have any different evidence for these events than you do the books of the Bible and you believe those things.

 

[R_Daneel]

its in the relationship between freedom of action and freedom of will. your free will isnt effected by the freedom of action in the way youre thinking. for instance, if you are tied up, you still have free will, you can make an act of will to think about something in particular or to play a song in your head. the physical restraint may prevent the physical manifestation of free will. if you are so restrained that you cant even think, then you are just an object, and not you because you no longer meet descartes requirement of cogito, in ‘cogito ergo sum’, and it becomes a moot point. we can talk about it being meaningless in some situations, but not that it simply dissapears.

Hogwash. According to your thinking that hypothetical woman about to be gang-raped still has the “freedom” to lay back and enjoy it. Such thinking is totally irrational and hopelessly cynical. The hypothetical person exposed to a lethal threat by a criminal is not held resposible if gives in to the threat. You say that he had the option of allowing his loved one to be killed, but no one will agree with you. That is not an availabe “option” to ge “freely chosen”.

A meaningful free will always includes a goal the agent wants (wishes/wills/desires) to achieve, at least two ways to achieve it, and the locus of control must reside within the agent. Lacking any of these requirements makes free will nonsensical. Why the agent would choose the specific path is not relevant. The truth is that I am tried of wasting time on such obvious points.

i dont think choices need to be rational to be choices, you can always choose to act irrationally.

That is correct, but not what I said. I said that the choices must be rationally available.

if i were the soldier i wouldnt think that the robot had ‘sacrificed’ itself. it was a machine who simply followed the remote instructionns sent, or the onboard programming, in neither case did it have a choice. that would be like claiming an airbag sacrificed itself in a car accident. sacrifice itself requires volition. as does agape love, an action without volition is nothing more than particle movement. the value to the soldier of the robots actions are the same, but that doesnt make it love.

Again, as long as the action is the same, the motivating factor (pre-programmed deterministically, pre-programmed stochastically or volitionally chosen) is not relevant. After all we do not have “perfectly” free choices, we are born with our inclinations, and we are educated (programmed) to have a specific value system which cannot be circumvented. That fact does not make freedom meaningless. A robot may be programmed stochastically, and its choices will be influenced but not determined by the data in its brain, and in such a case it is valid to speak of a free choice, even for a robot.

i would agree that a dollar from grandma is the same as a dollar found, but it is not the same thing as 100 pennies.

As long as they are interchangable, there is no difference.

i understand, even a perfect simulation isnt the same thing as real love, a simulation must be forced. love is a free will act. this is the most important thing to almost everyone.

A perfect simulation is indistinguishable from the “real thing”. Suppose that perfect copy machine can make an exact replica of the Mona Lisa, down to the individual atoms. Atoms do not have identity, of course. Therefore the exact replica would or should be considered exactly as “good” and “valuable” as the orginal. The fact that most people might disagree only shows that most people are hopelessly irrational.

have you ever had a girlfriend or a wife? you would never tell a woman, “hey, im just faking love, but youre ok with that becaause im giving a perfect simulation right?” thats why im saying your emotional understanding is flawed. its not a comment on IQ, its an assesment of your EQ. i have a really low EQ, and im aware of what is escaping you. thats why i keep trying to tell you thats not a real world option. much less for a G-d who cannot be fooled even by a perfect simulation.

Part of the perfect simulation is never telling that one deals with a simulation. Isn’t that obvious? The “original” and the “simulation” must be evaluated on their own merits, and if the simulation is perfect, there is no way to tell which is which.

 

[R_Daneel]

this really goes to the question of suffering. why would a loving G-d allow suffering. if we assume G-ds existence as we must when asking that question. then this is the appropriate answer.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html

now if you are tempted to say that it doesnt fit the standard of what you think is appropriate, here is a technical demonstration to explain why personal opinions of G-ds actions cant be valid.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=367987

You are changing the goalposts, again. You brought up a handful, unsubstantiated, anecdotal “evidence” to indicate God’s love - and you consider that a valid argument. I bring up billions of instances when God could have intevened and did not - and you dismiss those billions of examples as insignificant. This is the other reason why this conversation is futile and meaningless. Sorry to say but you are hopelessly irrational. (If this is against the forum’s “charity rules”, I apologize, but that is my opinion.)

each book is independent. supporting the others, which is why they were cannonized. so when you talk about outside sources the most important ‘outside sources’ are included in the Bible. the Bible is in fact a compilation of all the books available at the time that were found to support the new faith.

but more important, why do you think all these dozens of books need a further verification after that? surely you dont deny the moonlanding happened, or the magna carta existed, or alexander conquered babylon? yet, you dont have any different evidence for these events than you do the books of the Bible and you believe those things.

Pure nonsense. If you believe that your examples are on the same level as for being properly documented and substantiated, there is nothing to talk about. (I can’t resist: those books should have been “cannonized” as you say… and not “canonized”. Sorry for the joke.)

 

[Betterave]

One more suggestion, MrZ, since your friend likes to bring up the holocaust: Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning. Frankl is a concentration camp survivor and this one should be accessible even to you hardened unbelievers who might be reading this.

A brief Wiki excerpt to give you the flavor:

"Frankl identifies three psychological reactions experienced by all inmates to one degree or another: (1) **shock **during the initial admission phase to the camp, (2) **apathy **after becoming accustomed to camp existence, in which the inmate values only that which helps himself and his friends survive, and (3) reactions of depersonalization, moral deformity, bitterness, and **disillusionment **if he survives and is liberated.

“Frankl concludes that the meaning of life is found in every moment of living; life never ceases to have meaning, even in suffering and death. In a group therapy session during a mass fast inflicted on the camp’s inmates trying to protect an anonymous fellow inmate from fatal retribution by authorities, Frankl offered the thought that for everyone in a dire condition there is someone looking down, a friend, family member, or even God, who would expect not to be disappointed. Frankl concludes from his experience that a prisoner’s psychological reactions are not solely the result of the conditions of his life, but also from the freedom of choice he always has even in severe suffering. The inner hold a prisoner has on his spiritual self relies on having a faith in the future, and that once a prisoner loses that faith, he is doomed.”

The point here is that the mature, fully human response to suffering is to find meaning in it, not to complain that it shouldn’t exist. The latter response demeans our humanity and is simply harmful to us.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hogwash. According to your thinking that hypothetical woman about to be gang-raped still has the “freedom” to lay back and enjoy it. Such thinking is totally irrational and hopelessly cynical.

first, you are qouting some philosophy, but you have to be able to defend it, these things arent so obvious as you think. your idea is wrapped up in things i can easily deny.

she has her entire free will, there is no mechanism that simply makes it dissapear because her freedom of action is limited. which is what i mean when i say that the ontological status of free will doesnt change just because freedom of action changes. there is no metaphysical mechanism by which this happens that i know of. can you demonstrate such a mechanism?

suppose she were a telekinetic, she could manifest her free will even were she physically restrained. if she is restrained to the point she cant think or act at all, then she is no longer a person and simply an an organic object, making the point moot

The hypothetical person exposed to a lethal threat by a criminal is not held resposible if gives in to the threat. You say that he had the option of allowing his loved one to be killed, but no one will agree with you. That is not an availabe “option” to ge “freely chosen”.

how does being responsible for an act or not, limit your free will? you can always do the irrational because it is an available option. you just may not like the outcome. but that doesnt necessarily prevent you from doing it.

A meaningful free will always includes a goal the agent wants (wishes/wills/desires) to achieve, at least two ways to achieve it, and the locus of control must reside within the agent. Lacking any of these requirements makes free will nonsensical. Why the agent would choose the specific path is not relevant. The truth is that I am tried of wasting time on such obvious points.

they are not obvious points, just reading it in a philo 101 book, doesnt make it true. for instance, why do you think that free will must be “meaningful” to exist? does a lame racehorse not exist because it cant run? you dont need to choices to acheive agoal either, you can always choose not to acheive the goal.

That is correct, but not what I said. I said that the choices must be rationally available.

why must they be rationally available? you can always act irrationally. i must be missing something here.

Again, as long as the action is the same, the motivating factor (pre-programmed deterministically, pre-programmed stochastically or volitionally chosen) is not relevant.

it is extremely relevant. your thinking that the same action is of the same value regardless of motivation.it may be from the actors point of view but it most assuredly is not from the recievers point of view.

if a person sacrifices their life in battle they are given awards, ceremonies, if a robot blows up, you just get another robot. it would be silly to give a robot a funeral.

there is no sacrifice if there is no volition. no one thinks a cruise missile sacrificed itself.

After all we do not have “perfectly” free choices, we are born with our inclinations, and we are educated (programmed) to have a specific value system which cannot be circumvented. That fact does not make freedom meaningless.

completely false. we can act against any inclination or value system. i can murder or raise butterflies, regardless of any inclination or value system.

A robot may be programmed stochastically, and its choices will be influenced but not determined by the data in its brain, and in such a case it is valid to speak of a free choice, even for a robot.

stochastic programming simply means indeterminant it doesnt mean free will. a robot cannot act against its programming. the robot cannot stand up from the bomb and dance ‘billie jean’ if it could it would be useless as a bombbot. even if it has millions of possible choices, it must choose from among them. it cannot choose from any action at all.

A perfect simulation is indistinguishable from the “real thing”. Suppose that perfect copy machine can make an exact replica of the Mona Lisa, down to the individual atoms. Atoms do not have identity, of course. Therefore the exact replica would or should be considered exactly as “good” and “valuable” as the orginal. The fact that most people might disagree only shows that most people are hopelessly irrational.

i completely agree. but your not talking about a perfect copy, part of the copy for these things would be freely chosen love. the mere physical copy of something doesnt matter if there are other factors, and in love motivation is afactor in how valuable it is to people.

Part of the perfect simulation is never telling that one deals with a simulation. Isn’t that obvious? The “original” and the “simulation” must be evaluated on their own merits, and if the simulation is perfect, there is no way to tell which is which.

and as i pointed out days ago, this isnt possible with G-d. the original point of the conversation. you cannot fool G-d. that would be just like you expected the person who made the robot to not be fooled.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are changing the goalposts, again. You brought up a handful, unsubstantiated, anecdotal “evidence” to indicate God’s love - and you consider that a valid argument.

what was the previous goalpost then? people say that but if i did so i dont know how.

i brought up the things that point to G-ds love. what is your standard of evidence then for showing G-ds love?

I bring up billions of instances when God could have intevened and did not - and you dismiss those billions of examples as insignificant.

 

[benny4victory]

i heard fr corapi say, why does God permit evil? to draw a greater good out of it.

 

[Zerilos]

I enjoy BArt Ehrman’s thoughts on the matter of suffering. He’s not so bothered by the fact that bible god allows suffering to exist as he is by the fact that (according to the OT) he causes most of it to exist.

 

[Gareth]

The free will issue is really only an issue if you don’t believe people have non physical souls (as the Church teaches)…

I struggle sometimes on questions regarding suffering. It just doesn’t seem quite right to say that suffering exists because of free will. What about horrible natural disasters? like Haiti for example its hard to see how free will caused this… my friends ask me these questions sometimes…

Peace to all
Gareth

 

[tonyrey]

The free will issue is really only an issue if you don’t believe people have non physical souls (as the Church teaches)…

I struggle sometimes on questions regarding suffering. It just doesn’t seem quite right to say that suffering exists because of free will. What about horrible natural disasters? like Haiti for example its hard to see how free will caused this… my friends ask me these questions sometimes…

Peace to all
Gareth

Not all suffering exists because of free will. Natural disasters have natural causes. It is evident that we don’t live in a world directly controlled by God. We can see that from the state it is in…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I enjoy BArt Ehrman’s thoughts on the matter of suffering. He’s not so bothered by the fact that bible god allows suffering to exist as he is by the fact that (according to the OT) he causes most of it to exist.

G-d doesnt cause any suffering undeservedly.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The free will issue is really only an issue if you don’t believe people have non physical souls (as the Church teaches)…

I struggle sometimes on questions regarding suffering. It just doesn’t seem quite right to say that suffering exists because of free will. What about horrible natural disasters? like Haiti for example its hard to see how free will caused this… my friends ask me these questions sometimes…

Peace to all
Gareth

when an atheist says that natural suffering, is “evil” ask him how a random event can be"evil"?random events dont have a purpose. they simply happen. thats like saying its evil when you dont win the lottery.

his instant reply will be that suffering is evil no matter the cause. point out that this is an uproveable assertion. provide a copy of salvific dolores.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html

if he insists that his opinion take precedence, we can show that people cannot reach a valid conclusion in the matter of the problem of evil. you will find the4 supporting arguments here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=367987

 

[michael21]

I’ve read this thread with great interest.

I recently learned of a young man, all of about 25. brilliant in mind and beautiful of soul. He touched many and was taken away in an instant, a tragic and unexpected accident. So I contemplated suffering.

His, instant to his tragic accident, denial of his fullness. His family and friends coincident to his loss, and the realization of that denial to him and themselves no description needed. To those not related by love or family who are simply troubled when I witness their suffering.

I have come to some conclusions and am interested in the reply.

Many say “free will” and an argument regarding free will ensues.God’s pre-determinations, good evil sin and so on. I think it misses.

Free will does not pertain to our daily acts. God created the natural world and its natural laws. We choose by accident or intent to challenge those laws, and a tragedy, can ensue.

We choose to sin or not? thats too simple for me.

Free will speaks to belief. Th difference in Judaism and thence Christianity is God’s Bargain with man, his covenant with us.

That covenant speaks to free will to believe or not. The original sin of Adam and Eve is a manifestation of that choice. A choice that they and their progeny make again and again.

They chose not to believe, and sans belief they make some interesting choices.

There seems to be some continuing references to Gods responsibility. I’d like to go there again, when we talk about Free will, and the freedom to choose God.

First direct me on this base premise

 

[tonyrey]

God created the natural world and its natural laws. We choose by accident or intent to challenge those laws, and a tragedy, can ensue.

We choose to sin or not? thats too simple for me.

You are right! The vast majority of accidents have natural causes. God allows suffering because it is impossible to create an immensely complex system like the physical universe in which there are no unfortunate coincidences. Sooner or later some one is bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time…